For those not familiar with Elliott Abrams, he’s been at the center of every foreign policy disaster (or success if you’re Abrams) in the last 40 years. I’ve covered his exploits in the Middle East in the past. The article that sparked the Horton interview was by Jon Schwarz at The Intercept, “Elliott Abrams Isn’t Going to Bring “Democracy” to Venezuela”. It focuses on Abrams time in the 80s overthrowing governments in Latin America. He was very much involved with intervention in many of the Central American nations we hear about in the news daily; El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela. The effects created by the United States government and Elliott Abrams’ disruptions in these nations still remain today.

Since the end of the Rand Paul’s presidential campaign in 2016, I haven’t had an antiwar candidate to push for the next election cycle. I’ve been watching a lot of Jimmy Dore lately, and he’s been ripping apart the establishment left-wing media’s attempt to smear Tulsi Gabbard, who’s running for president in 2020.

I started thinking, I listen to Scott Horton interview left-wing progressive journalists all day, all who are the best of the best on covering US foreign wars. The same journalists are terrible on economics and individual rights, evident by their support for Bernie Sanders in 2016. A lot of them supported Dennis Kuncinich in the past, someone I respect for his fight for peace.

Going into 2020, many of these journalists are supporting Tulsi Gabbard. She’s a Iraq War vet, she was stationed in the Sunni Triangle, she joined the National Guard after 9/11, and she speaks the truth on nation building in the Middle East. They love her. She shares their views on economics and government as a vehicle for good.

Many extreme antiwar activists did away with a need for the government or voting long ago. They only come out of the woodwork for a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich. They register to vote, do Moneybombs, join parties to primary and do anything possible to try to stop the war machine. Now, I’m not saying that Tulsi Gabbard is as “pure” as the two men from 2007. Is she enough to get a (small) movement going of principled antiwar activists voting for her in the Democratic primary?

In the video below I wrestle with the pros and cons of Gabbard’s platform and the results of her winning the horse race. The overall idea is to push the presidential debate from who can bomb more countries to who can end leave them the quickest.

Like this:

I’ve been away…mentally. The country has gone completely nuts, and it’s hard to add commentary to noise. So this is some quick thoughts on Saudi Arabia, the mid-terms and the state of American society.

Content

This episode can be found here.
The full episode archive can be found on Podomatic & on ITunes. The Youtube version is below:

Like this:

The most recent events involving Saudi Arabia are interesting to me more because of the response than the actions of the Saudi government. Comments from Senators like Graham and Rubio included words like “regime change” in regards the Saudis.

This messes with my personal political narrative history, where the neoconservatives were friends with the Saudis (embarrassing close around 9/11), through their relationship with Israel and the defense industry.

I thought I’d take some time and effort to try to figure out what the Neocon angle would be for calling for the regime change of “MBS”, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. He has worked well with Tel Aviv and made deals with President Trump. The war in Yemen he started has received political, military and diplomatic over by the US and The West (thanks Iran). So I landed on MBS’s “purge” during 2017, and the names of those who he went after. I covered it previously.

Khashoggi’s downfall is that he supported/was supported by the wrong princes. His loyalty to Prince Turki Al-Faysal & Prince Khalid Al-Faysalprovided him connections with Saudi Intelligence and mainstream Saudi media working for the Al-Waton newspaper. Itself owned by a friendly prince. Prince Turki himself lead Saudi Intelligence leading up to 9/11, only stepping out of the position months before the attack. He is the brother-in-law and cousin of Prince Bandar (“Bandar Bush”), who famously has connections to the Wahhabi elements of the Royal Family. Prince Turki’s relationship with Bin Laden from their time as Mujahedden against the Russians may have helped him secure the shady (rumored) deal in 1998 between Saudi intel and Al Qeada to “outsource” the extremism. Going as far as helping with funding from the Taliban.

Khashoggi and his princes belong to one of three power groups that struggled for control after the death of King Abdullah.

The first group of course King Salman and the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

The second group’s face is Prince Nayef, the previous Crown Prince, who himself along with his sons were swept up in the “corruption” purge of MBS.

It’s the last group that connects dots for me. They were the ones in charge during the height of Neocon control of Washington foreign policy. The Bin Laden family history is interwoven with this group. The theories behind Saudi involvement in 9/11, funding ISIS, assisting Al Qeada affiliates in Syria all include the names of this “old guard”.

I don’t know why MBS focused his purge in this direction. Remember, Prince Bandar was removed from power and arrested also. Maybe it’s a deal he made with Trump? Give up the 9/11-era pieces of trash in exchange for weapons/cover to bomb Yemen? Maybe he is of a different generation, and the separation is just change. Moving away from the extremist elements of the Saudi Family. Something that would anger the policy establishment which enjoys using Sunni radicalism to bring Iran down a peg. He has gone along with the US, when Trump announced an end to CIA support for jihadists in Syria for example.

Khashoggi’s murder was most likely because of his outspoken comments on the war in Yemen, and the Prince’s policies towards Syria, Lebanon and Qatar. He wrote anonymously (until now) at Middle East Eye. Kings and princes have people executed. That’s why I’m fond of America. The prince took his power too far here and his enemies are jumping on it. The “old guard” of the Saudi Royal Family and their US allies within D.C. are attempting a P.R. campaign to guilt trip the president (and in term the Republican voter) into dumping MBS and allowing a return to business as usual. This is why I think we see Lindsay Graham and Rubio calling for the cutting off of diplomacy with Saudi Arabia.

Let me end by saying that completely support the efforts of Rand Paul to use this astro-turfed anger at Saudi Arabia to point out all the reasons the House of Saad is more of an enemy to the American people than an ally. MBS needs to be held accountable for his crimes, in Turkey and in Yemen. However, my fear of the “return of the Neocons” remains strong.

I have a Saturday planned filled with sports and enjoyment, but I had some frustration to get out. Last night on Twitter, Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein of the “Intellectual Dark Web” both called for Kavanaugh to step down if confirmed on the Supreme Court. The argument is presented as if this move by Kavanaugh will “clear his name” and “heal the nation”. Neither is true, and part of me knows that both men know this. The backlash on Twitter is pretty absolute.

This video is about my fear of mob rule and how increasingly authoritarian the culture is getting. It’s not on the fringes any longer, and the mainstream has bowed down to it, and is hoping on board to keep power.